Pregnant GF, would you ask her to abort? Guys?

[Jazzari]

This is why abortion is necessary. Its completely ridiculous to gestate a child just to send it out to the world and say "im done with you, good luck! i didnt abort you, so my conceince is clear!". Thats not responsible at all. No child should be born just for a principle. If you are going to have the baby, you should have to rasie that baby. Rape or not. Too many kids thrown into foster care never get adopted and their lives are crap.

 

If youre not going to get an abortion, and you want to carry it to term, you shouldnt be able to just toss it out to the world, you need to take responsibility for it.

 

Although white babies are in high demand from barren couples.

Babies don't go into foster care, there are long waiting lists of people who desperately want a baby. Even for non-white babies. I will agree that babies who are not healthy have a hard time being adopted. But race just doesn't matter. It's only the older kids who go into foster care.

 

So in most cases (expect medical) you are killing the baby for your own reasons. You certainly aren't doing it for the welfare of the baby.

[BellePerdant]

Ooh, toughie.

 

If that happened to me right now, I'd have no way to take care of the baby and I'd probably seriously consider abortion. Adoption would be the second choice depending on how far along I am in my pregnancy.

 

My family is going through a lot with my dad having lung cancer and since I still live with my parents it would only add more hardship.

[Jazzari]

Did you know that the Pill is a mini abortion device? Not talking about the morning after pill. Billions of women around the world are aborting as we speak, so are you against sex, since its impossible to have 100% protection with a condom?

That's the interesting thing about this debate. People equate "life" at different periods in the process.

 

I don't equate sperm with life. You would be killing babies every time you had a wet dream. And very few sperm inside the woman's body make it through to create a baby. I would be killing a baby every month during my period if I though an egg was life. So sorry - I think that's just silly.

 

My feelings toward abortion change at different points in the process. While I don't agree with early term abortion, I have no problem with a morning fter pill. And I can go along with anything in the first trimester though I get more uncomfortable in the 3rd month. Late term abortion is murder, plain and simple. The baby is viable - sometimes at early as 5 months.

[makelemonade1974]

His jism, his dna, the next 18 yrs of his future and likely beyond and his money. You think its your exclusive decision to make, well you're wrong!

 

Well maybe he should be more careful with his "jism" (like wear a condom). You don't have a right to lay hands on my body if I don't want you to; you don't have a right to injure my body if I don't want you to; you don't have a right to rape my body if I don't want you to; so neither do you have a right to force me to carry your child if I don't want you to. My body is my body. I'm not talking about the issue of abortion in its entirety, I'm talking about the OP's original question.

 

I see your point about child support. If you didn't want the baby in the first place, I agree that you probably shouldn't have to pay any money. I believe there are legal ways to sign away your rights to a child so you won't have to - although I don't know the technicalities about that situation.

 

As I've said before, abortion is ugly, particularly after the first couple months it may even be akin to "murder" of a child. I don't know the answer to questions about "when the soul enters the body, etc." and I think if I accidentally became pregnant, I would have the baby, because there is always a way to work things out. I'm not the same person I was when I was 18. I'm not advocating abortion (although I do think it should be legal - within parameters - because of things like rape, incest, mother's health, etc.), merely advocating that a woman should have the rights to her own body. It is her decision, not the man's, the ethics of abortion aside.

[Fondue]

Easy enough to solve. Get a vasectomy and put a condom on, always. Some women will put the 'oh my god, I'm pregnant', while dating you and it sure is funny when you play along and pretend to believe in it, and when she demands you to man up, the guy does so by showing the certificated document that proves to her that you are shooting blanks .

 

About the whole women carrying the baby therefore having a right to having it or aborting it etc. Sure, that's a woman's right. So boys, if you don't want to end up a slave for 18 years(and your kid can legally make you pay for college), either keep it inside your pants or get a vasectomy.

 

Its very cheap - when compared to 18 years of child-support- the discomfort only lasts for 3 days or so, and you're left with tremendous freedom.

 

There's nothing quite like not being tied down, to be completely free of any chain and that is a dream made reality by 600.000 males, each year, in America alone.

 

If you want to have children, freeze your sperm and rent the services of a surrogate mother. Its far easier than having it with a girlfriend or a wife, and when the relationship ends, you won't be paying child-support while some other guy is raising your kid and you're stuck at seeing your child 2 weekends a month, if that most.

 

 

Wait. Logic. On a romantic forum.

 

Does.

 

not.

 

Compute.

 

If I was female, you'd be my "other half." No doubts about it.

 

I couldn't agree more. This post is 101% accurate.

[zengirl]

Seeing as baby making is 2 person process, both people should have a say in the matter.

 

It's not a baby yet (babies can live on their own) and in her body. If it could be transferred to your body, you'd get some of the rights. It can't, so any guy who tries to weigh in is basically. . . an ass. Telling someone what they can and cannot do with their own body to me is perhaps the cruelest thing I can imagine.

 

At any rate, having sex without any kind of protection is just stupid in this day and age, especially as the OP seems to acknowledge there is a risk without doing so and should know better.

 

Did you know that the Pill is a mini abortion device? Not talking about the morning after pill. Billions of women around the world are aborting as we speak, so are you against sex, since its impossible to have 100% protection with a condom?

 

I understand that the Catholic church is anti-pill, but it's not because it's abortive perse. They're also against masturbation, but they don't believe it's abortive, and any high-ranking Catholic I've heard speak on this matter more equates it with that---the idea that it's wasting reproductive potential, yes, but not aborting life.

 

Technically and scientifically, the pill (regular use pill) is not abortive at all. . . . it just doesn't do the same thing. Regular use of the pill actually mimics pregnancy in the body in order to prevent it. Typical combination BC prevents ovulation. . . there is nothing to abort. I'm wildly pro-choice (Hey, if it needs your body to live, you get to say what happens to it----the only solution that isn't cruel to the host/mother is to find a viable way to remove the zygote from the host/mother and grow it somewhere else, under the State's care) so it's not like I need the distinction for nuance. I just find your assertion scientifically unsound.

[Jazzari]

It's not a baby yet (babies can live on their own) and in her body. If it could be transferred to your body, you'd get some of the rights. It can't, so any guy who tries to weigh in is basically. . . an ass. Telling someone what they can and cannot do with their own body to me is perhaps the cruelest thing I can imagine.

Let me give you a scenario.

 

Girl gets pregnant and decides to keep the baby. Boy is thrilled.

 

Six months or more into the pregnancy (baby is viable) she gets pissed off at the boyfriend and decides to abort.

 

Do you still think he has no say? Isn't it his job to protect his child? And that includes making sure the mother is cared for and doesn't do drugs or anything else that will harm THEIR child. And most importantly - doesn't the viable baby have any rights?

 

This is no longer just her body. She is sharing it with another individual person. Killing another person is what is cruel.

[zengirl]

Let me give you a scenario.

 

Girl gets pregnant and decides to keep the baby. Boy is thrilled.

 

Six months or more into the pregnancy (baby is viable) she gets pissed off at the boyfriend and decides to abort.

 

Do you still think he has no say? Isn't it his job to protect his child? And that includes making sure the mother is cared for and doesn't do drugs or anything else that will harm THEIR child. And most importantly - doesn't the viable baby have any rights?

 

This is no longer just her body. She is sharing it with another individual person. Killing another person is what is cruel.

 

Well, if it's past a certain point, I'd prefer they simply deliver the fetus (a 24 week old fetus probably won't survive outside the womb, but I believe it's happened so I'm certainly up for giving it a chance), rather than abort it.

 

In your scenario, the woman sounds a bit flighty, and I cannot endorse her reasons. However, to legally restrict her right to her own body would be disgusting to me. I do believe 24 weeks is the absolute cutoff for abortions in even the most liberal of countries (and it's much closer in the U.S.) with the exception of in cases where the mother's health is in jeopardy --- a good exception since the mother's health should always come first since she's a living, breathing person who can survive on her own, without requiring another person's body to be viable.

 

But, yes, I do think the father has no say. When it lives in his belly and feeds off his life force, he'd get the say. When it's living on its own, he'll get some say. When it's living in the mother, relying on her for its viability, then she gets the total say. The end.

 

For the sake of legal argument, I'm fine with a closing off date around 16-20 weeks (depending on how much wait time is expected from when you make the appointment --- one reason it's longer in some countries, is there can be 3-4 weeks wait time, depending on healthcare availability). As long as women are given reasonable choices to decide whether they want to host a zygote/fetus/someday-baby at all.

 

If it was already an individual person, it wouldn't need a womb.

[Els]

The OP, frankly, confounds me. Why the bleeding fxxk would you be having sex without contraception if you don't want kids?

 

A guy wanting to fxxk without contraception when kids are out of the question, in the first place, is a bullet best dodged ASAP.

[carhill]

Hypothetically (or maybe this happened to you) if you had sex with your girl over and over, didn't use condoms and got her pregnant, would you ask her to have an abortion?

 

Though we were married, I did this, and would have welcomed the child. If in similar circumstances with a girlfriend, same. When I was dating and having sex, I either used a condom or she a diaphragm and BC, or both, as we chose to minimize the risks of pregnancy.

 

Ultimately, the woman (and her body) is the final arbiter of pregnancy and its conclusion. Men can want but legally there is very little we can do to affect the outcome. I accept that. I understand that every act of penile-vaginal sex can result in pregnancy and/or a host of other issues relevant to the act. It's part of life as a mature adult. EOS.

[zengirl]

The OP, frankly, confounds me. Why the bleeding fxxk would you be having sex without contraception if you don't want kids?

 

A guy wanting to fxxk without contraception when kids are out of the question, in the first place, is a bullet best dodged ASAP.

 

Oh, totally. While I'm 100% pro-choice, I'm not pro-stupidity. If you don't want kids, use protection! It's not 100% effective, but not even trying to be smart and safe is pretty gross.

[Jazzari]

If it was already an individual person, it wouldn't need a womb.

By that reasoning, babies that need incubators would not be considered an individual person. Or anyone on life support for that matter. So I have to disagree with you on this one.

 

Babies in the womb can hear, smell, taste, feel pain. They suck their thumbs and can even get erections. They respond to music and the sound of their mother's voice. And my personal belief is that they have a soul. So even though they are hooked up to "life support", I believe they are an individual person and should be treated as such.

[weedsandposies]

i'm the OP

 

-i'm a woman

-we're both in our 30's

-we're both financially stable

-and thankfully found out i'm not pregnant

 

almost a year ago, i told the guy i was seeing i was not on birth control, suggested we use condoms, but he talked me out of it since we were exclusive. this is stupid and unless it's my husband will never be happening again.

 

so this guy flat out told me a have to have one after i told him in a previous convo that i can take care of it myself. btw, we have known eachother for 12 years, off and on. he then hinted we would not be raising it together, fine i had already told him our relationship wouldn't go very far anyway. maybe he panicked you ask? nope, he told me in 2 seperate convos- he's not ready to be a father. really now?

 

then after a week of ignoring him, he back-peddled and said it was my choice. damn right it is. men you legally and morally lose your right to stop a prenancy when your penis enters a woman's vagina. that was your choice.

 

unfortunately this thread got into morals/politics, really just wanted a poll of ideas. becuase for me, and i believe most other women, a man who asks a woman to have an abortion isn't worth sh*t.

 

no judgment and i'm not judging any guy on here who said they would ask for one, tactfully and more so if it were an accident. BUT i am so happy that most of you would own up reagardless.

 

i made the right decision. and dumped him. thanks.

[musemaj11]

That's the interesting thing about this debate. People equate "life" at different periods in the process.

 

I don't equate sperm with life. You would be killing babies every time you had a wet dream. And very few sperm inside the woman's body make it through to create a baby. I would be killing a baby every month during my period if I though an egg was life. So sorry - I think that's just silly.

 

My feelings toward abortion change at different points in the process. While I don't agree with early term abortion, I have no problem with a morning fter pill. And I can go along with anything in the first trimester though I get more uncomfortable in the 3rd month. Late term abortion is murder, plain and simple. The baby is viable - sometimes at early as 5 months.

In other words, you are cherrypicking.

 

Hypocrisy is a funny thing.

[Jazzari]

In other words, you are cherrypicking.

 

Hypocrisy is a funny thing.

No, I'm not cherry picking. I disagree with abortion completely. I think I stated that.

 

But I'm not comfortable making that decision for another woman in the first trimester. I don't like it, I don't agree with it, but it's her choice. After the third trimester, then the only reason I would agree is medical.

[johan]

I would never ask or demand that a woman get an abortion. Outside of outright abuse, I'm not sure there is any way to be more dishonorable.

[ASG]

If a guy EVER asked me to abort a pregnancy, even if it was already my intention to do so, I'd never speak to him again.

 

My thoughts exactly. If the father even SUGGESTED an abortion I would just kick him to the kerb.

 

I'm pro choice, though I don't think I would ever choose to have an abortion unless it was for health reasons (mine or the baby's).

[ASG]

Let me give you a scenario.

 

Girl gets pregnant and decides to keep the baby. Boy is thrilled.

 

Six months or more into the pregnancy (baby is viable) she gets pissed off at the boyfriend and decides to abort.

 

Do you still think he has no say? Isn't it his job to protect his child? And that includes making sure the mother is cared for and doesn't do drugs or anything else that will harm THEIR child. And most importantly - doesn't the viable baby have any rights?

 

This is no longer just her body. She is sharing it with another individual person. Killing another person is what is cruel.

 

You can't abort at 6 months. You'll find that most countries have a 12 to 16 week policy on elective abortion.

In some cases you *can* abort at 6 months when there is something seriously wrong with you or the baby.

But that kind of abortion is even more traumatic than the one you have in the 1st trimester, as it's not just an aspirator removing the fetus from the uterus. You actually have to DELIVER the baby!

 

My friend was pregnant and her baby died. At 8 months, so it was a completely viable baby, but his cord wrapped around his neck and he asphixiated. She had to deliver her dead baby. Can you imagine a more traumatic event??? She was a mess for over a year!

[Eddie Edirol]

then after a week of ignoring him, he back-peddled and said it was my choice. damn right it is. men you legally and morally lose your right to stop a prenancy when your penis enters a woman's vagina. that was your choice.

 

If a woman lets a man go raw dag with her, without explaining to him that she will keep an accidental baby regardless of what he wants, she is just as stupid and worthless as him.

[zengirl]

By that reasoning, babies that need incubators would not be considered an individual person. Or anyone on life support for that matter. So I have to disagree with you on this one.

 

Babies in the womb can hear, smell, taste, feel pain. They suck their thumbs and can even get erections. They respond to music and the sound of their mother's voice. And my personal belief is that they have a soul. So even though they are hooked up to "life support", I believe they are an individual person and should be treated as such.

 

Babies in incubators don't require an individual's host body to live. By my logic, they would be babies. I meant a biological womb that requires another living being to carry it, not a machine that mimics a womb. I'm all for advancing science to make life viable at an earlier point and make this issue moot. If you could keep an embryo alive outside of a woman's body, I'd be totally cool with doing so, but forcing someone to carry what is essentially behaving (biologically) like a parasite in her body when she doesn't want it there? Totally cruel and disgusting.

 

Forcing someone to carry something in their body is a form of slavery.

[johan]

If a woman lets a man go raw dag with her, without explaining to him that she will keep an accidental baby regardless of what he wants, she is just as stupid and worthless as him.

 

Stupid maybe. But she has at least some standards she won't compromise for him. I think that's the sign of a quality person. And if he doesn't like it, that's one thing, but if he chooses to abandon her and the kid, then he's the worthless one. Next time he'll cover up.

[Jynxx]

Didn't read the discussion, but here it goes: I don't have unprotected sex. A friend of mine became a father at the age of 20, even though his gf said she was on the pill. He suspects she intentionally "forgot" it. Made me so scared I prefer using a condom now, even if the girl says she's on the pill.

 

Even with anti-conception, something might go wrong. She may forget her pill, the condom can break etc. In that case I would probably ask her for an abortion. I'm way too young, not in the right mindset and currently not in a good financial position to have children. Most importantly, I've never met anyone with who I wanted to make children, as it would mean spending decades of our lives together or at least in each others close neighborhood.

 

Going deeper into the question, this is such a ****ed up situation for every Western country:

-If a guy doesn't want an abortion and his gf does, she can.

-If a guy wants an abortion and his gf doesn't, he can't make her AND she can make him pay for the child he didn't want. There is of course no punishment for "forgetting" to take anti-conception.

[Jazzari]

Babies in incubators don't require an individual's host body to live. By my logic, they would be babies. I meant a biological womb that requires another living being to carry it, not a machine that mimics a womb. I'm all for advancing science to make life viable at an earlier point and make this issue moot. If you could keep an embryo alive outside of a woman's body, I'd be totally cool with doing so, but forcing someone to carry what is essentially behaving (biologically) like a parasite in her body when she doesn't want it there? Totally cruel and disgusting.

 

Forcing someone to carry something in their body is a form of slavery.

Now a baby is a parasite?? Really?

 

Killing a baby is what is cruel and disgusting. Just out of curiosity and my apologies is this is too personal - have you ever been pregnant and given birth? The baby is REAL. I've found people who've never given birth have a harder time believing that emotionally.

 

You aren't forcing a woman to carry a baby. That was her CHOICE. She chose to take the risk of having sex and getting pregnant. It's like working under a binding contract - not slavery.

[zengirl]

Now a baby is a parasite?? Really?

 

Killing a baby is what is cruel and disgusting. Just out of curiosity and my apologies is this is too personal - have you ever been pregnant and given birth? The baby is REAL. I've found people who've never given birth have a harder time believing that emotionally.

 

You aren't forcing a woman to carry a baby. That was her CHOICE. She chose to take the risk of having sex and getting pregnant. It's like working under a binding contract - not slavery.

 

Sure, embryos are parastitic organisms biologically. They require another organism (the mother) to survive and be viable. Babies are not parasitic. They are able to live, breathe, laugh, and persist on their own --- biologically; obviously they are rather defenseless and require other organisms to care for them, but they don't need the bodies of the other organisms). I'm just going by the definitions in a basic biology textbook here. Embryos and even fetuses are not viable on their own. People should not be forced to be human incubators or told what to do with their own bodies. The end. You disagree with me, I get it.

 

No, I've never been pregnant, nor given birth. I actually want kids someday. I actually wouldn't get an abortion (personally wouldn't choose to do so) but I would feel suffocated in a society where I didn't have the right to. It's my damn body, and I'll do what I like and what *I* choose. I won't be forced to be a human incubator. There aren't many things I'd fight in a war for, but this right would be one of them. I feel like it's a fundamental human freedom.

 

I think sex is a healthy part of life, and denying people the right to sex is also cruel. There is no 100% foolproof way to avoid pregnancy (short of something brutal like a hysterectomy) so abortion must be legal or else you ARE forcing women to carry children. That said, of course, people should be safe and smart about their sex, and the OP is an idiot if he's having unprotected sex.

[Jazzari]

Sure, embryos are parastitic organisms biologically. They require another organism (the mother) to survive and be viable. Babies are not parasitic. They are able to live, breathe, laugh, and persist on their own --- biologically; obviously they are rather defenseless and require other organisms to care for them, but they don't need the bodies of the other organisms). I'm just going by the definitions in a basic biology textbook here. Embryos and even fetuses are not viable on their own. People should not be forced to be human incubators or told what to do with their own bodies. The end. You disagree with me, I get it.

 

No, I've never been pregnant, nor given birth. I actually want kids someday. I actually wouldn't get an abortion (personally wouldn't choose to do so) but I would feel suffocated in a society where I didn't have the right to. It's my damn body, and I'll do what I like and what *I* choose. I won't be forced to be a human incubator. There aren't many things I'd fight in a war for, but this right would be one of them. I feel like it's a fundamental human freedom.

 

I think sex is a healthy part of life, and denying people the right to sex is also cruel. There is no 100% foolproof way to avoid pregnancy (short of something brutal like a hysterectomy) so abortion must be legal or else you ARE forcing women to carry children. That said, of course, people should be safe and smart about their sex, and the OP is an idiot if he's having unprotected sex.

You approach this from a scientific viewpoint. Mine is more emotional and spiritual. You see a bunch of cells, I see a person with a soul. So we're not going to agree, but I enjoyed the discussion.